Simultaneity as you said is a better term, and "according to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space." So if, say, I see my alarm clock go off at say 10pm and just then see a star exploding, then the explosion and the alarm activation are happening simultaneously -- as far as I'm concerned.
The trouble with that definition of simultaneity is that it's asymmetrical. By that definition, someone sitting at the point of the explosion would disagree that the explosion and your alarm clock going off happened at the same time - he'd have to wait 11,000 years for the light from the alarm clock going off to reach him.
Two observers in the same frame of reference (assuming Earth and the exploding star are not moving very much relative to each other) should agree on the order and simultaneity of events - otherwise it's not much use as a frame of reference.
"Now" spreads at the speed of light so when you see something, it's happening, as far as you are concerned, right now.
I don't think that's how a physicist would define simultaneity. There is a reference frame in which it happened as arbitrarily close to "now" (in that reference frame) as you'd like, but we're not in one of those.
The event which produced the photons happened, as far as I'm concerned, 11,000 years ago.
If you want to say it's happening "now," then any signal we send back in that direction will also get there "now." Except that that "now" will be 22,000 years later then the first "now," which makes no sense.
And just because a group wraps itself up in the first amendment doesn't make it sincere.
It also doesn't make it insincere just because you can come up with a wildly different example of potential free speech infringement.
It's like berating your neighbour for holding a noisy barbecue, and asking him how he'd like it if you broke into his house in a ski mask, threatened him with a baseball bat and trashed his furniture.
So, just as a hypothetical... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?
How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?
The Patriots only scored 17 points in the 1st half, when the under-inflated footballs were discovered. The patriots scored their remaining 28 points in the 2nd half with normally inflated footballs.
Who knows how the game might've gone without the under-inflated balls in the first half? Maybe the other side were psychologically defeated by the lead the Patriots had thanks to cheating in the first half. Maybe they were forced into some risky tactics which failed to pay off.
I mean, maybe not, I have no idea about the two teams involved. But you can't just extrapolate directly from one half to the other.
In 569 allegations of excessive or inappropriate use of force (arising from 363 incidents), only seven were sustained—meaning 99 percent of cases were dismissed.
Okay, those are some numbers. Are they good? Are they bad? What percentage of dismissals would be "good" if - as is implied - this statistic is indicative of something being wrong?
In a less rhetorical tone, how does this compare to other similar-sized forces around the country?
Exoneration rates were only slightly smaller when looking at all the cases — of the total 2,232 allegations, 284 were sustained.
Exoneration rates might be "slightly smaller" - 87% down from 99%, which isn't that slight - but if you look at it the other way, the "sustainment" rate is over 10x higher. Tricky things, numbers.
Among some of Rachner and Mocek's findings: a total of 1,028 SPD employees (including civilian employees) were investigated between 2010 and 2013. (The current number of total SPD staff is 1,820.)
Okay, sounds pretty bad. What were they investigated for? Do all the automatic procedures that get launched when someone discharges a firearm, for example, count as an investigation? What if there was a leak of information, and that one investigation initially covered 500 members of staff before quickly being whittled down to Gary in HR?
Without more context and some comparisons to other forces, I'm not really sure how much I should be tutting and shaking my head in dismay.
It's like when someone tells you that all the lego bricks in the world would cover London to a depth of six inches. At first glance, wow, that's a lot, but then I realise I really had absolutely no idea of what the number might be with which to compare the truth.
long stopping distances and limited maneuverability, driving one requires the ability to correctly predict what's going to happen far out ahead. That requires foresight and intuition that are difficult to program into computers."
Wait, who said that? It's just an unattributed quote stuck at the end of the summary.
While some are claiming this means things like warp drive [...] are right on the horizon
Who are these "some"? The article linked to by the sentence makes no mention of any claims of it being a warp drive.
And then this from the Forbes article:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
The linked announcement makes no mention of warping space, so the bolded section seems inaccurately disparaging.
It sounds to me like the guy who wrote the article has fooled himself into believing that someone has claimed it's a warp drive for the purpose of being able to find something to write indignantly about.
Come to think of it, the writer doesn't even seem to be sure of who's who in this scenario. "When you come across an announcement [...] you'd better make sure you aren't fooling yourself." Why would I be fooling myself by simply reading an announcement? Surely it's the people who make the announcement that should make sure they're not fooling themselves. Which I might think they were, if they'd said anything about warping space. Which they didn't.
So just who are these apparently imaginary people that the summary/article is railing against?
it allows you to pre-warp some space ahead in your journey
No-one - that is to say, no-one with an ounce of scientific credibility - is claiming it's a warp drive. There's no reason to even start to consider the idea that it might be a warp drive. The article linked to by the summary with the words "some are claiming this means things like warp drive..." doesn't even mention any claims that it's a warp drive.
The Forbes article links to another article with these words:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
And that linked article also doesn't even mention warp drive. Seems to me like some journalists need to calm down a little. "ZOMG! It's not a warp drive!!!" - yes, thanks, but no-one seems to saying it is.
It's a thing that appears to produce thrust by unknown means. That's all. It's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything that anyone would call a warp drive.
It's precisely why I can't stand these books. I can't suspend my disbelief that middle earth exists, that magic exists, not the way they use or describe it.
You do know there are other people on this planet who aren't you, right?
I would imagine more scientists get into comics
And I imagine that... well, you can make your own joke there. But it doesn't make it true.
Slashdot Mirror
Simultaneity as you said is a better term, and "according to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space." So if, say, I see my alarm clock go off at say 10pm and just then see a star exploding, then the explosion and the alarm activation are happening simultaneously -- as far as I'm concerned.
The trouble with that definition of simultaneity is that it's asymmetrical. By that definition, someone sitting at the point of the explosion would disagree that the explosion and your alarm clock going off happened at the same time - he'd have to wait 11,000 years for the light from the alarm clock going off to reach him.
Two observers in the same frame of reference (assuming Earth and the exploding star are not moving very much relative to each other) should agree on the order and simultaneity of events - otherwise it's not much use as a frame of reference.
"Now" spreads at the speed of light so when you see something, it's happening, as far as you are concerned, right now.
I don't think that's how a physicist would define simultaneity. There is a reference frame in which it happened as arbitrarily close to "now" (in that reference frame) as you'd like, but we're not in one of those.
The event which produced the photons happened, as far as I'm concerned, 11,000 years ago.
If you want to say it's happening "now," then any signal we send back in that direction will also get there "now." Except that that "now" will be 22,000 years later then the first "now," which makes no sense.
Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion....
.... And?! I need closure on that anecdote!
gubernational
Hah. Guber.
Since the byline mentions mister Bond, presumably a derivation from the '64 007-flick Goldfinger ("No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"),
Presumably so. I can't come up with any reason why it's remotely relevant to the article, though.
I need to point out that "fender" is a decidedly American English term, which one would call "mudguard" in proper English.
Huh. I thought fenders were bumpers. So what are bumpers in USian?
16 is the first statistically significant sample size.
Statistics do not work that way! Goodnight!
Ah, the system works.
Yes, please define fricken TLAs.
Fricken what?
And just because a group wraps itself up in the first amendment doesn't make it sincere.
It also doesn't make it insincere just because you can come up with a wildly different example of potential free speech infringement.
It's like berating your neighbour for holding a noisy barbecue, and asking him how he'd like it if you broke into his house in a ski mask, threatened him with a baseball bat and trashed his furniture.
So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?
How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?
The Patriots only scored 17 points in the 1st half, when the under-inflated footballs were discovered. The patriots scored their remaining 28 points in the 2nd half with normally inflated footballs.
Who knows how the game might've gone without the under-inflated balls in the first half? Maybe the other side were psychologically defeated by the lead the Patriots had thanks to cheating in the first half. Maybe they were forced into some risky tactics which failed to pay off.
I mean, maybe not, I have no idea about the two teams involved. But you can't just extrapolate directly from one half to the other.
Because of the existing ban on American companies supplying technology to Cuba, Havana had to look somewhere else
Had to? Because otherwise there couldn't be possibly be any reason to look anywhere other than the USA for high quality software? Sheesh.
You do know it's okay not to be "number one!" at everything, right?
it's been the nom for so long
And it's everywhere, which makes it the om nom.
Already working on my own streaming system
With blackjack? And hookers?
A similar story local to me:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
In 569 allegations of excessive or inappropriate use of force (arising from 363 incidents), only seven were sustained—meaning 99 percent of cases were dismissed.
Okay, those are some numbers. Are they good? Are they bad? What percentage of dismissals would be "good" if - as is implied - this statistic is indicative of something being wrong?
In a less rhetorical tone, how does this compare to other similar-sized forces around the country?
Exoneration rates were only slightly smaller when looking at all the cases — of the total 2,232 allegations, 284 were sustained.
Exoneration rates might be "slightly smaller" - 87% down from 99%, which isn't that slight - but if you look at it the other way, the "sustainment" rate is over 10x higher. Tricky things, numbers.
Among some of Rachner and Mocek's findings: a total of 1,028 SPD employees (including civilian employees) were investigated between 2010 and 2013. (The current number of total SPD staff is 1,820.)
Okay, sounds pretty bad. What were they investigated for? Do all the automatic procedures that get launched when someone discharges a firearm, for example, count as an investigation? What if there was a leak of information, and that one investigation initially covered 500 members of staff before quickly being whittled down to Gary in HR?
Without more context and some comparisons to other forces, I'm not really sure how much I should be tutting and shaking my head in dismay.
It's like when someone tells you that all the lego bricks in the world would cover London to a depth of six inches. At first glance, wow, that's a lot, but then I realise I really had absolutely no idea of what the number might be with which to compare the truth.
Because to anyone looking in the other end, they'll seem tiny and far away.
Gollum writes:
"Given a big trucks'
*rolled up newspaper swat* No! Go to your bed!
long stopping distances and limited maneuverability, driving one requires the ability to correctly predict what's going to happen far out ahead. That requires foresight and intuition that are difficult to program into computers."
Wait, who said that? It's just an unattributed quote stuck at the end of the summary.
Also, Simpsons did it.
As often happens, my RSS feed display chopped off the end of the headline, and my overactive imagination supplied a much more interesting conclusion:
As Hubble Breaks a Distance Record, We Learn Its True ...
Purpose.
It's a radio... for talking to God!
But we make our wo-men wear clothing.
I don't. They insist on doing it anyway.
Rave reviews for Prenda:
"Ingenious" - Senior Judge Pregerson
While some are claiming this means things like warp drive [...] are right on the horizon
Who are these "some"? The article linked to by the sentence makes no mention of any claims of it being a warp drive.
And then this from the Forbes article:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
The linked announcement makes no mention of warping space, so the bolded section seems inaccurately disparaging.
It sounds to me like the guy who wrote the article has fooled himself into believing that someone has claimed it's a warp drive for the purpose of being able to find something to write indignantly about.
Come to think of it, the writer doesn't even seem to be sure of who's who in this scenario. "When you come across an announcement [...] you'd better make sure you aren't fooling yourself." Why would I be fooling myself by simply reading an announcement? Surely it's the people who make the announcement that should make sure they're not fooling themselves. Which I might think they were, if they'd said anything about warping space. Which they didn't.
So just who are these apparently imaginary people that the summary/article is railing against?
If I understood correctly,
You don't.
it allows you to pre-warp some space ahead in your journey
No-one - that is to say, no-one with an ounce of scientific credibility - is claiming it's a warp drive. There's no reason to even start to consider the idea that it might be a warp drive. The article linked to by the summary with the words "some are claiming this means things like warp drive..." doesn't even mention any claims that it's a warp drive.
The Forbes article links to another article with these words:
When you come across an announcement like the one made by NASA Spaceflight a week ago: that NASA has made a successful test of the EM Drive — a propulsion engine that uses no propellant, seemingly violating one of the most fundamental laws of physics, while warping space in the process — you’d better make sure you aren’t fooling yourself.
And that linked article also doesn't even mention warp drive. Seems to me like some journalists need to calm down a little. "ZOMG! It's not a warp drive!!!" - yes, thanks, but no-one seems to saying it is.
It's a thing that appears to produce thrust by unknown means. That's all. It's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything that anyone would call a warp drive.
With that level of pedantry you must be quite a hit with the [your preferred gender].
Nonsense
It's precisely why I can't stand these books. I can't suspend my disbelief that middle earth exists, that magic exists, not the way they use or describe it.
You do know there are other people on this planet who aren't you, right?
I would imagine more scientists get into comics
And I imagine that... well, you can make your own joke there. But it doesn't make it true.